Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

aceofspades8412 wrote:I guess I might have kept those four higher in the list because they are among the top 5 firms I'd like to work at eventually and I really want to make sure I get them. Looks like I should think more on that though.

I'm with you. Last year people were advised to move Davis Polk down because they gave 200+ interviews and 100% who bid got interviews in 2011 with Davis Polk. Suddenly last year 290 people bid on Davis Polk and a lot of people who really wanted them missed out on them.

If you really want a firm, overbidding isn't an issue. However, if you really want to maximize the number of interviews, you need to bid them lower. That's where your priority comes into play.

Again, the problem is that people adjust their bids every year to new data. Maybe last year you could get it at 20 but since this year people see that only 76% got interviews last year, everyone will bid it higher and then it's totally plausible that you won't be able to get it at 20 this year.

Maybe you don't need to bid it top 10 but if you really like Davis Polk, I'd be wary of bidding it above 15.

Alright. Here's an attempt at ordering. 3.57. Interested in mostly litigation, but not 100% sure. I have a few more than 30 on here because I haven't decided what to cut yet. I put the few I am sure I want in bold. Any feedback about Ordering and/or Reasonableness of the list is appreciated

Anonymous User wrote:Alright. Here's an attempt at ordering. 3.57. Interested in mostly litigation, but not 100% sure. I have a few more than 30 on here because I haven't decided what to cut yet. I put the few I am sure I want in bold. Any feedback about Ordering and/or Reasonableness of the list is appreciated

I highlighted ones that I think will be difficult to get in those bidding positions, but I really don't have a clue. I think you might be better served by picking one of the most bid competitive firms and axing it (unless you really like them all). It is hard to draw that line between what you want, what you think you can get and what you just aren't sure about.

Anonymous User wrote:Alright. Here's an attempt at ordering. 3.57. Interested in mostly litigation, but not 100% sure. I have a few more than 30 on here because I haven't decided what to cut yet. I put the few I am sure I want in bold. Any feedback about Ordering and/or Reasonableness of the list is appreciated

CLS 3L here - I would swap Skadden NY and Proskauer (I bid Skadden 6 last year and got them). If you want Cleary, I'd move them up - at least ahead of Cravath, since most people got Cravath lower than that. Would also move Debevoise into your top 10 at least if you want them. S&C needs to be moved up a little as well if you want to guarantee that you get it. Last year, Boies Lit had to be 1/2 to get them. If you really want them, move them up to that position, but to be brutally honest with you it's a long shot unless you get CLR.

As a general note, you have a fantastic GPA, so you can feel comfortable moving some of the large class grade-selective NYC firms up and dropping some less grade-selective firms down (or replacing them with less grade-selective firms who are easier to bid on)---with your GPA, it's largely going to come down to interviewing anyway, you're comfortably over the line for grades.

Interested in transactional work in NYC w/ a 3.7+. Good work experience between undergrad and CLS (not TFA, for what its worth). Would be interested in comments from lurking 3Ls / alumni in particular, if any are around.

I know I've overbid some firms (some a lot - Cravath). I'm particularly interested in the bolded firms though and a lot of the V10 have big classes. As a normal person, I'm banking on my grades getting me an offer from one of them minus WLRK. I know we're all risk averse, but am I totally off?

Anonymous User wrote:Interested in transactional work in NYC w/ a 3.7+. Good experience between undergrad and CLS (not TFA, for what its worth). Would be interested in comments from lurking 3Ls / alumni in particular, if any are around.

I know I've overbid some firms (some a lot - Cravath). I'm particularly interested in the bolded firms though and a lot of the V10 have big classes. As a normal person, I'm banking on my grades getting me an offer from one of them minus WLRK. I know we're all risk averse, but am I totally off?

Also -- not interested in Latham. Besides them, any obvious absences for someone interested in corp?

-M.C. Burns

Obviously not a 3L, so take it with a grain of salt, but I think putting some of more bid-competitive firms (e.g. Debevoise, Freshfields, Fried Frank, MoFo, Milbank) that low will make it unlikely that you'll get a screener with them. You obviously have killer grades, but you might want to play with your ordering a bit more. Would you rather guarantee interviews with the bolded or have more interviews overall? Maybe you'd be better off removing some of the firms you're not VERY interested from the top all together/maybe you should consider if you'd rather have the guaranteed screener at Shearman & Sterling or if you'd rather try to pick up a few from my list above. Just my two cents.

Anonymous User wrote:Interested in transactional work in NYC w/ a 3.7+. Good work experience between undergrad and CLS (not TFA, for what its worth). Would be interested in comments from lurking 3Ls / alumni in particular, if any are around.

I know I've overbid some firms (some a lot - Cravath). I'm particularly interested in the bolded firms though and a lot of the V10 have big classes. As a normal person, I'm banking on my grades getting me an offer from one of them minus WLRK. I know we're all risk averse, but am I totally off?

Going to mostly echo what Ted said. There's nothing wrong with bumping firms up a few spots to guarantee the interview, but you may actually be playing it 'too' safe with your bolded firms. I cannot see you getting many more than 15 interviews with this bid list. DPW, for instance, has tons of interview slots, even if the entire C/O 2015 bid them (which they won't - 100, at the very least, will leave DPW off) you'd be safe at 7. Logic dictates that this is something of an overbid, then. Simpson is another example of a firm you can move way down, it just isn't overbid very heavily and it's probably safe anywhere at 20 or lower.

I think you can move Cleary down a bit and be ok because they have 200 slots. I would move SullCrom up; people like them because of their really good offer:callback ratio. I would try to get it into the top 10. Covington at 23 seems really low to me. 74% interview rate with only 80 slots for interviews. It may be unlikely that you get them there.

Weil is quite low, but I'm sure you're aware of that. (It's hard to know what to do there.) Your grouping from 13-18 is obviously where you're being riskier. You have better grades than I do, so maybe you can afford being gutsy like that, but I pretty much have your 6-12 slots and 13-18 slots flipped.

The last couple lists there had DPW and Simpson a little higher up the list, so maybe a few more people are putting them higher this year. Did a little revision on my list and would welcome any further comments on my rankings. Anybody have any good strategies for putting firms in the bottom ten bids (besides WLRK and perhaps Cravath) and actually getting a screener?

Schulte, Shearman, Cleary look too low to me. I didn't get Cleary at 17 or Shearman at 7 last year and luckily got interviews through the hospitality suite but you can't really rely on that. Schulte is usually pretty overbid as they make a lot of columbia offers. I would put it in top 10 at least if you're interested in them.

Probably could move s&c, paul weiss and freshfields down a bit. Just my two cents.

Looks like a good list. The only thing I see is that Cahil might not need to be that high - maybe you could swap it with Schulte or Willkie? Otherwise, looks great and with that gpa you should kill it.

aceofspades8412 wrote:The last couple lists there had DPW and Simpson a little higher up the list, so maybe a few more people are putting them higher this year. Did a little revision on my list and would welcome any further comments on my rankings. Anybody have any good strategies for putting firms in the bottom ten bids (besides WLRK and perhaps Cravath) and actually getting a screener?

One thing that jumped out to me is Kirkland. Last year I think they gave out screeners to 37% of people who bid on them, and this year they've cut back from 80 slots to 60. Are you just hoping to get a hospitality suite interview with them?